Second Language Acquisition - Essay Example

Second Language Acquisition Second language acquisition is the process by which people learn a second language. It is also a scientific discipline devoted to the study of the processes involved in learning a second language. Any other language learnt other than a person’s first language is referred to as second language. However, the concept of second-language acquisition can involve the learning of the third, fourth and fifth languages. Language acquisition does not necessarily require extensive employment of grammatical rules neither does it require tedious drilling. He further suggests that language acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language. He claims that language acquisition is concern with effective communication, in the sense that the recipient is able to decode the intended message rather than his utterances or pronunciation (Krashen 5). The best methods that ensure efficient second language acquisition are those that supply a comprehensive input during periods of low anxiety. In addition, the best second language acquisition techniques should acknowledge the student’s progress rather than manipulating the student’s progress. Second language acquisition is an essential process for most students who happen to be speaker of non-Norwegian languages but they win academic scholarships to Norwegian countries. Krashen’s theory of second language acquisition is based on the following hypothesis. The first hypothesis is acquisition-learning. Under this hypothesis two policies that guide the acquisition system and language performance are unveiled. Acquisition system is closely related to the system that children undergo while learning their distinct first languages. Acquisition process tends to concentrate on communication rather than utterance. Therefore, individuals employing second language acquisition procedures to understand a new language should ensure that they interact with the target language. The second part of this hypothesis involves the actual learning process. This section of the hypothesis involves critical understanding of the grammatical rules employed in the language of interest. Thus, this critical stage or rather aspect of secondary language acquisition is acquisition rather than the learning aspect that involves the grammatical rules involved (Krashen 9). The second hypothesis of this theory is the monitoring hypothesis. This hypothesis seeks to explain the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the effect of the former on the latter. According to the theory, acquisition is the initiator of learning a new language, and learning on the other hand plays the editorial role in the process of learning a second language. Thirdly, the hypothesis of natural order has been proven through research. It states that acquisition of a second language’s grammatical structure takes a natural course that is predictable. Learners understanding of a second language vary from one student to the other depending on the difficulty level. Some grammatical rules tend to be acquired earlier that others. This course of events is independent to variation of learners’ age bracket. Fourthly, input hypothesis is also a vital step in acquisition of second language. This hypothesis is primarily concern with the acquisition process and not the grammatical rules associated with the second language. Input hypothesis stipulates that an individual learner acquaint himself or herself to the second language through acquisition that is developed along the natural order by progressively gathering linguistic competence that would enable him or her to advance to the adjacent stage in competence or eloquence in communicating using the second language (Krashen 26). The last hypothesis in the theory of second language acquisition is affective filter. This hypothesis describe facilitative factor that motivate an individual into learning a second language. These facilitative factors in acquisition of a secondary language include self-confidence and anxiety. The theory suggests that learner with high self-confidence and good self-image is likely to experience the process of second language acquisition with ease. However, the instructor’s statement, that the best way to learn a language is just speaking it; that’s why our teaching materials focus on getting learners to talk as much as possible, is baseless since it was made under misguided terms or rather outdated ideology. According to the hypothesis employed in second language acquisition, acquisition of a language other than ones first language is easier when one develops a coherent interest in it rather than being forced to learn it. The fifth hypothesis of effective filter clarifies that efficiency in second language acquisition is based on individual interest and self-confidence. The primary goal of second language acquisition is to enhance communication rather than strict adherence to grammatical rules (Gass & Selinker 13). Input in second language acquisition is basically the language that is readily available to learners. In language acquisition, input is the most crucial factor since it provides learners with a language that acts as their reference in deducing linguistic hypothesis. This therefore calls for comprehensiveness in the input provided to learner so as to aid them in formulation of viable hypotheses that would ease their construction of second language grammar. Interaction between a learner and a native language of interest speaker enhances fruitful and ease in learning the second language. This interaction provides a comprehensive input to the student’s expansion of linguistic knowledge which is a vital step of acquisition (Rassaei 1). An example on an interactive negotiation that results to successful acquisition of a second language is illustrated below. The conversation is between an individual who is an English native speaker and the other is a learner of English as a second language. Native English speaker: Could you please give me that gas mask? English learner: Mask? Gas masks what? Native English speaker: Mask worn when working in areas with poisonous gases. English learner: Ooh poison mask, gasses? Native English speaker: Yes, masks that protect workers from poisonous gases. English learner: Poison gas mask is a gas mask. The above negotiated interaction is a comprehensive input that has enabled the English learner to identify what a gas mask is and its function, all in the same context. Therefore, negotiable interaction that is associated with relating the usage of equipment and its appearance is an efficient input that exposes learners to an efficient acquisition process that can be supported later on by learning the exact grammatical laws employed in the second language of interest. Moreover, feedback in a negotiated interaction is a vital stage in ensuring that acquisition of a second language is accomplished with ease. Feedback in interaction with the second language can emanate from the teacher of fellow students. Since acquisition process involves ones self-confidence and interest, negative feedback can be a major drawback that would undermine students understanding of the second language (Ellis, 15). Negative feedback can occur in the following contexts: Firstly, confirmation checks are a serious undermining issue in second language acquisition. Confirmation checks are expressions that seek to confirm if the utterance is the exact one heard by the recipient. The first stage of second language acquisition is acquisition. Therefore a learner in this stage tends to communicate without necessarily observing the grammatical rules governing the second language thus he or she is bound to make mistakes in utterances. The fact that the recipient keep employing confirmation checks, portray negativity and the learner may become demoralized. It is vital that teachers or fellow learners appreciate the progress made by an individual rather than adopting a critical perception since this would boost the student’s morale and interest during the acquisition process (VanPattern, 3). Secondly, clarification requested if posed using a wrong approach has a demoralizing effect on the learner. A clarification request posed in a polite and jovial manner would imply that the teacher is willing to correct the student in case of utterance error. On the other hand, a clarification request posed in a sarcastic manner implies that the teacher or fellow student posing that clarification request is interested in embarrassing the speaker. This therefore results in negative feedback that can be demoralizing to the learner. Thirdly, comprehensive checks should be properly employed so that learner self-confidence is not affected. After correcting a learner from an utterance mistake, comprehensive checks posed in quick succession may create a different notion in the learner’s mind. The learner is likely to look down upon his progress and thus quitting second language acquisition. Therefore, comprehensive checks should be employed in the learning process in a manner that would suggest the urge to help and appreciate progress and not a manner that suggest no progress has been made and the learner is not working extra hard in ensuring successful acquisition of this second language. Finally, the most crucial stage of accessing learner’s progress in acquisition of a second language is based on the output. Output is the language that learners produce. Modification of learner’s output is entirely based on the feedback that he or she receives during negotiated interaction stage. However, teachers should at ball time encourage learners by appreciating the progress and giving the morale to improve their output. This can be achieved by increasing the learners’ interaction to the second language and giving him or her convenient environment that would enable the learner to practice the second language (VanPattern 5). In conclusion, SLA is founded on principal that encourage and expose a student to the second language for easy acquisition. Second language acquisition is not about how many time learners speak that language, it is about the learner’s attitude, exposure to the second language and personal interest. Therefore, the misconception that the best way of learning a language is just speaking it is based on outdated ideologies that do not hold in the current society. There is more to second language acquisition than just speaking it, since learner interests is also vital. Work Cited Crystal, David  The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language.  Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print Ellis, Rod. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press, 1994. Print Gass, Susan M., & Selinker, Larry. Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction Course. Taylor & Francis, 2006. Print Krashen, Stephen D.  Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.  Prentice-Hall International, 1987. Print. Krashen, Stephen D.  Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.  Prentice- Hall International, 1988. Print Moss, Donna., & Ross-Feldman, Lauren. Second Language Acquisition in Adults: From Research to Practice. ESL Resources. 2003. Retrieved From: http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/sla.html Rassaei, Ehsan. The Effects of Input-Based and Output-Based Instruction on L2 Development. Tesl-Ej. 2012. Retrieved From: http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume16/ej63/ej63a2/ Saville-Troike, Muriel. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. 2006. Print VanPatten, Bill. From Input to Output: A Teacher’s Guide to Second Language Acquisition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print Read More